memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:USS Voyager personnel/archive
Vulcan Nurse Shouldn't this read as speculation regarding her Vulcan status? She could simply be from a vulcanoid species, explaining her non-listing as a telepath and her un-Vulcan-like laughter, etc referenced. — THOR 13:25, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC) Article to rework I've worked on the Voyager personnel article for the french MA. I've visited every character's articles to make things sure and I've seen many things that should be reworked or precised (I didn't made the changes because I didn't know if things were missing on the individual articles and I haven't got time) I've made a table for this article on MA-fr. See : fr:Personnel de l'USS Voyager "?" was put when it is officially undetermined and I let the cell empty when I wasn't sure (which means it should be verified) *Image shows a miniature image (37px) of the person if available. "Refered" will be displayed if he is only refered *Genre : A lot of articles don't precise the genre (M / F). That's why I always put the same template for character even minor ones like this because this enables not to forget information, and saying that the genre is undetermined is also an information. *Rank : I'm really not familiar with english enlisted ranks, but what I've understood is that crewman belongs to enlisted ranks (maybe I'm wrong), so why does every character only mentionned on listing or dialog belong to this category ? Can't they be lieutenant or ensign ? On my article, I put a "?" rather than make speculation ::N/A for civilians *Division abreviations ::1 : Division ::C = Command]] ::O = Operations / O (I) = Engineering / O (S) = Security ::S = Sciences / S (M) = Medecine / S (S) = Sciences ::N/A for civilians *Origine precises : "USS Voyager", "USS Equinox", "Maquis", "former Borg drone", "Ocampa", "Baxial", "born aboard", "artificial creation", "former Q", "teleportation incident"... *Notes : "Still living in 237?" (last living logical appearance) or "Returned in Alpha Quadrant", "died in 237?", "Refered in an alternative timeline at Starfleet Command" (Non Sequitur => not sure they really belong to the ship in this timeline), "Aboard since 237?", fonctions (astrometrics, aeroponics...) :This gives interesting and precise informations about the crew evolution *Species : Some articles mention that the character is human even if is only refered, which is complete speculation, unless I didn't see other episode refences After the table, I've started a crew account by time, missions after missions *'Stardate ?????.?' ("Caretaker") : Description of the mission ::Deads = number Cavit (lieutenant commander, first officer), Stadi (lieutenant, pilot), unknown chief- engineer, unknown CMO (lieutenant commander), unknown vulcan nurse, ... ::New crewmember = Neelix, Kes and the Maquisards of Val Jean This article took me at least 30 hours (searching, formatting...), but it is still possible I've made errors, maybe a control table should be prepared in a table for each character (for each cell). I can't translate it because it will take me too much time, and as french MA's only admin, I have many things to do. But if someone is interested... - Philoust123 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Crew count The 141 crew complement in 2371 probably don't include the Doctor and Tom Paris, although the 146 does include them. Are we sure the crew was 146 in 2377 ( ). Neelix makes a lottery with 146 isolinear chip, 1 for each crewmember (which include Seven and the Doctor), but does it include Neelix also ? He seem to have noone to contact in the Federation. He even ask the Doctor if he could talk to his editor about a cooking book rather than asking himself. Note also that after this episode, Joe Carey dies and Neelix leaves the Voyager, so there seem to be only 144 or less returning to Alpha Quadrant. But it is also possible that Carey and other dead crewmembers have resurrected :) - Philoust123 15:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Crew manifest Here are screenshots of the crew manifest from several Voyager episodes, namely , , and . File:USS Voyager crew manifest, Projections.jpg|Projections File:USS Voyager crew manifest, Non sequitur.jpg|Non Sequitur File:USS Voyager crew manifest, The killing game I 1.jpg|The Killing Game File:USS Voyager crew manifest, The killing game I 2.jpg|The Killing Game File:USS Voyager crew manifest, Someone to watch over me.jpg|Someone to Watch Over Me Lt. Cmdr. Michael Piller, Cmdr. Jeri Taylor, Cmdr. Brannon Braga, Morale Ofcr. Neelix...--Jörg 23:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC) ::This is clearly an in-joke, and we shouldn't take it at face value. Do you really think there could have been two officers outranking Tuvok and Chakotay? Jaz talk | novels 23:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :::Are we sure these names are people actually working on the Voyager ? These people could be people who worked on the Voyager before it was pushed in the Delta Quadrant : commanders overseeing Fleet Ops tests for example... Maybe, the ensign Jerry Fleck (Ensign) (just added) is Jerry Fleck (Ensign) and was assigned aboard the ship just for the tests then worked on the Prometheus and Enterprise-E - Philoust123 12:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC) ::::This makes sense -- if they were assigned to Voyager but were not onboard when it left DS9 it would explain how the same persons worked on the USS Prometheus three years later -- Captain M.K.B. 13:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC) :::Is it posible to have the source (which image) of the names you added on the article (in hidden notes after their names) - Philoust123 15:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC) ::::I've made my interpretations available here: ::::*USS Voyager crew manifest, The killing game I 1 ::::*USS Voyager crew manifest, The killing game I 2 -- Captain M.K.B. 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC) :::Thanks. I don't know how many time this will take me for adding this new informations on my table in MA-fr : One hour just for Rick Berman !! :( - Philoust123 15:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC) :::Another argument that they weren't all onboard is that there are some 200 persons listed now. People from "Non Sequitur" belong from an alternate timeline. - Philoust123 18:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Forum:Voyagers "other" crew who weren't in the Delta Quadrant The career of the people from the dedication plaques are often credible (with little speculation sometimes), by following the dedication plaques, except the fact that many names are too recurring (from the 22nd century to the 24th century) But in order to complicate this business, most of them are also cited on the USS Voyager crew manifest. As there are over 240 names in this crew manifest, we can assume some of them were not aboard the ship in the Delta Quadrant. Furthermore, there are too many superior officers on the Voyager : * Cdr J. Bartlett (list of deads) * Cdr Rick Berman (crew manifest) * Cdr Brannon Braga (crew manifest) * Lt Cdr L. McGarry (list of deads) * Lt Cdr Michael Piller (crew manifest) * Cdr Jeri Taylor (crew manifest) * Lt Cdr Brad Yacobian (crew manifest) * Lt Cdr T. Ziegler (list of deads) * Lt Cdr Merri Howard (crew manifest) * Lt Cdr Richard James (crew manifest) * Lt Cdr Peter Lauritson (crew manifest) * Lt Cdr David Livingston (crew manifest) * and many others... Most of them were previously refered as admiral or captain. They can't all have died during (some 12 deads during the first week) A disconcerting coincidence is that many of those officers were listed on the USS Voyager's dedication plaque. That's why I proposed (here) that the characters from the dedication plaque were listed in the dedication plaque because they were part of the ship's crew before it was stranded in the Delta Quadrant : construction, tests phase... (these characters are also listed in further sources) or as an homage. The only problem is the doubtful ranks : People previously refered as Captain or Admiral are listed on this crew manifest as Commander, lieutenant Commander, ensign... CaptainMike proposed the rank of Commander, Starfleet for the Admirals Berman, Braga and Taylor. This theory is possible but very debatable : for example, Vice Adm. Brad Yacobian is refered as a lieutenant commander on this crew manifest and I don't believe in a "lieutenant commander, Starfleet" rank. Is it also bizzare that 3 admirals were given this very strange rank (only cited ones) and that simple Commander has the same abreviation as this high rank. But why not! That's why I proposed a second theory which is that this crew manifest was deliberately falsified. In that case, the names that are added must be names recognizable by the crew, so the use of the people on the dedication plaque with strange rank is a good way to memorize them. The advantage : disturb aliens who tries to scan the database or board the ship. For example, when Hirogen took control of the ship (crew manifest from "The Killing Game"), maybe they loosed hours searching for fantoms. Seeing that list, who's the second officer : Cdr Berman, Cdr Taylor or Cdr Braga... or someone else ? Hirogens may also have sent ships searching for these lacking crewmembers (remember that a lot of shuttlecrafts are lacking :). Another example, an alien ship scans the Voyager database and sees that there are 250 crewmembers aboard, will he launch a boarding, even if he can sense only 160 crewmembers from different origines (does his sensors work well or are there aliens that are undetectable ?) This theory is also debatable, but CaptainMike removed it, "simply because speculation isn't our job -- we should state that a disconiuity exists, not try strenuously to explain it. The fact is the crew manifest could have out-of-date ranks, or list people assigned to the ship that weren't aboard when it left dock. And i personally think that falsification doesnt sound that likely." So, in order to understand what is good speculation (commander, Starfleet by CaptainMike 1) and what is bad speculation (falsification), I also put the debate here - Philoust123 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC) :Anyone listed who wasnt confirmed that they came along should have a note, and not be called on as part of the "castaways" :Their ranks: What if Lieutenant Commander Yacobian designed Voyager 's phasers when he was a lieutenant commander, and then administrated the delivery and installation of plasma tanks on 10 ships at his starbase command, later, when he was a vice admiral? These ranks arent completely unexplainable. Anoyne's ranks on the crew manifest should be referred to as a rank they "once held" or some more usable terminology than saying "they were a lieutenant commander in 2374, definitely, surely". These lists could be out of date, etc. -- Captain M.K.B. 01:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I like the idea you proposed here (this separation is very unpractical :) of creating a simplified formatted and unique text for them. We should work on this, trying to be as large and complete as possible. Maybe we could wait a week or two in order to have other opinions. That may avoid useless misunderstandings. Some arguments are not easily understandable and need to be better explained in this text : I only now understood with your example, your "out-of-date" argument, for example. On MA-fr, the Voyager crew personnel article that I proposed, put notes ("remarques") about their references / apparitions : *''Toujours vivante en 237?'' => Still living in 237? obviously on board *''Cité dans une liste des pertes'' => Cited in a list of dead crewmembers *''Cité dans un manifeste d'équipage en 237?'' => Cited in a crew manifest footnote is added in some case because this people may not be on board *''Cité dans une liste de l'équipage à Starfleet Command dans une chronologie parallèle en 2371'' => Cited in a crew manifest at Starfleet Command in an alternate chronology in 2371 from Non Sequitur who may not be part of the crew in this timeline The image is also added when available (still problem with the size it should have to adjust) and a "cited" template is set in the place in the other cases. People who are doubtfully are also italicized (same footnote). The individual articles all get a comment on this. The following characters (crew manifest) are not added for the moment, but soon : Alan Sims, Gary Speckman, David Stipes, Michael Stradling, Ron Surma, Merri Howard, Richard James, Peter Lauritson, David Livingston, Jim Mees, Ronald B. Moore, Michael Demeritt, Jon Djanrelian, Wendy Drapanas, Junie Lowry Johnson, Dennis Madalone, Jim Magdaleno, Dennis McCarthy, Scott McKnight, Tom Moore, John Nesterowicz, David Rossi, Sandra Sena, Suzi Shimizu, Al Smutko, Rick Sternbach, Mark Stimson - Philoust123 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC) :I'm not sure i fully understand many of your remarks either. Have you outlined a plan or process, or simply restated what you said before? I see no progress in the discussion, but i also don't understand what you meant when you mentioned the images, or your list of French notes. :The separation of the discussion is because it was started as a personal discussion towards myself, and therefore no one else was participating. :My comments on speculation are in a separate discussion, becasuse they apply to the whole site. :I disagree with the appraisal of the crew manifest from "Non-Sequitur" -- Harry looked at it, went over it, and decided that he wasn't there and the Byrd was in his place. If there had been any names not part of his appraisal of who was supposed to be in Voyager's crew manifest, he should have noticed. The alternate timeline note is therefore inconsequential, and would be confusing to add. We should treat those crew like any others on the manifest. Part of VOY's crew manifest, but not necessarily part of the Delta Quadrant crew. We should try and find a uniform note to explain them all. We should not go into more than one statement trying ''speculate ''-- do not explain why they would/wouldn't be there. * Out of date ranks/crew - State the list might be out of date, explaining absent crewmembers. Do not go into detail about how out explaining why the ranks are lower, why the crew are absent, etc, unless it is a person on the dedication plaque -- this is the only explained cases of this we have. * Falsification - State the list might have been falsified. Do not go into detail about why or how this might have been done. this is immaterial. * Alternate timelines -- not an appreciable option. some say Harry would notice, some say he wouldn't. Make one note of this concerning the specific list in the time-travel episode, do not muddy up each individual article with a long dissertation on why/how timetravel could make the list different. The Docter Should he be listed on the crew manifest? RicoRichmond 17:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC) :He is, under D.--31dot 18:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Crew Numbers and deaths The actual given number of crew/lifeforms aboard the ship varies quite wildly: 3x23 - during a scan by the aliens they identify "148" lifesigns/crew (probably excludes the doctor). 5x04 - The doctor says "2 down, 125 to go" when he's testing what I presume is the entire crew to ensure they're not species 8472. 5*13 - "crew of 152" 5x?? - crew of 143 detected (didn't note the exact episode) 5x22 - "crew of 146" This is compounded by the number of confirmed dead in non-timetravel/alternate-reality type scenarios: 4x18 & 4x19 (killing game) at the end Janeway says both sides have taken "heavy casualties". During the games we're told "10 dead" within the a recent period of time, probably a mix of hirogen and crew. It seems likely most of them were crew rather than hirogen though. 4x23 - 3 dead "engineering crew" 4x25 - 1 dead 5x11 - 1 dead ensign anja jatel (18 months ago) 6x01 - 2 dead maybe 3 or more (we see Paris give up on a crew member in sickbay). gained 5 from equinox though. And that's only from paying attention from 3x2x to the early sixth season (excluding some early-mid-fifth season). It seems like the writers just randomly pulled a number when they wanted to give a crew number. Plus that's an absolute minimum of 7 confirmed dead. Maybe someone wants to investigate these numbers for the first three seasons.